At 12/4/2012 1:21:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:Personally, I've never seen an irreligious person use the crusades to argue that religion is morally wrong. Maybe you have.

I've just seen them use it to say that religion has had a track record composed mostly of stupid shit.

But hey, Mao did even worse in the name of Atheism. So I'm not defending anyone here. I think organized opinions in general have never gotten us much good.

I had a debate over religious morality with a noob (http://www.debate.org...) and one of his arguments was that "Religion has constantly proved to have caused troubles within our history." Of course, that isn't the first time.

Why else point out "that religion has had a track record composed mostly of stupid shit" other than to make a claim about the morality of religion? Perhaps I'm missing something.

Even if religion proved time and time again to function poorly or become corrupt, there wouldn't be anything intrinsically morally wrong about it, would there?

Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

It's also interesting to note that the Encyclopedia of War states that only about 7% of all wars in recorded history were actually religious in nature. That leaves 93% that were fought for non-religious reasons. If that's the case, then isn't it non-religion that is the bad guy here??

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

It's also interesting to note that the Encyclopedia of War states that only about 7% of all wars in recorded history were actually religious in nature. That leaves 93% that were fought for non-religious reasons. If that's the case, then isn't it non-religion that is the bad guy here??

LOL wow. Even more of those were started by men. When are we going to finally do something about them?

"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

It's also interesting to note that the Encyclopedia of War states that only about 7% of all wars in recorded history were actually religious in nature. That leaves 93% that were fought for non-religious reasons. If that's the case, then isn't it non-religion that is the bad guy here??

LOL wow. Even more of those were started by men. When are we going to finally do something about them?

Ok, so let's get rid of all the non-religious men and see if the religious men still cause atrocities. If so then we'll have proof that religion is probably bad.

At 12/4/2012 1:47:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:Ok, so let's get rid of all the non-religious men and see if the religious men still cause atrocities. If so then we'll have proof that religion is probably bad.

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies... The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a "shining city on the hill" to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.["]Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical "cultures of life" that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. (Source: http://stupac2.blogspot.com.au...)

At 12/4/2012 1:21:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:But hey, Mao did even worse in the name of Atheism.

Mao did plenty in the name of the CP of China. I don't think he did anything in the name of atheism. Very different to the Crusades, which were fought in the name of Christianity.

...The Crusades don't mean Christianity is inherently morally wrong, but they are part of an argument against Christianity being a positive force historically. In that argument we are looking at practical outcomes as opposed to morality per se.

At 12/4/2012 1:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

At 12/4/2012 1:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

At 12/4/2012 1:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

Care to debate me on this point? I say it's BS.

He said COULD, not IS.

Obviously he meant to imply that it might be true. However, it isn't true. It's creationist propaganda.

At 12/4/2012 1:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

Care to debate me on this point? I say it's BS.

He said COULD, not IS.

Obviously he meant to imply that it might be true. However, it isn't true. It's creationist propaganda.

I think the argument here is something like this (focused on christianity): christianity claims to be a religion of love, yet, all too often, christians are very unloving. Christisns claim that when they are accepted into the fold here on earth the grace and love of God infuses them and motivates them to be loving (indeed, this is what Jesud taught), yet, strangely enough, there doesn't seem to be much of a qualitative difference between christians and non-christians. you would think that with such holy guidance as that there'd be some more empirical results. It makes these claims of the religion of love ring very hollow. It's like that abusive husband who beats and degrades his wife all the while insisting he really cherises and loves her above all things. Actions belie the word.

The same with how many christians claim moral authority.It seems rather implausible to the skeptic because christians claim this sort of authority yet, strangely enough, seem to be on the wrong side of moral progress. See: slavery, women's rights, etc. The examples are endless. It's hard to take these claims of moral authority credibly when christians are so often and astoundingingly incorrect on moral issues. Not only incorrect, but they use their claims to divine authority to legitimate these moral horrors.

Whiie I am a christian and I don't find these sort of argumens decisive let's not pretend that these people aren't raising legitimate points. It's easy to see what sort of argument would motivate that sort of sentiment as expressed by the op if you just think about it.

"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana

At 12/4/2012 1:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

Care to debate me on this point? I say it's BS.

What is it about that statement that you disagree with and want to debate??

At 12/4/2012 1:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews

Nope, he was cleansing the world of inferior people.

and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

Wow, so much BS just came out at once.

It's also interesting to note that the Encyclopedia of War states that only about 7% of all wars in recorded history were actually religious in nature. That leaves 93% that were fought for non-religious reasons. If that's the case, then isn't it non-religion that is the bad guy here??

Nice, love the strawmans.

"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana

Why do you have the same avatar now! I was already mixing you two up all the time.

nurbs is my multiaccount.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

At 12/4/2012 1:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

Care to debate me on this point? I say it's BS.

What is it about that statement that you disagree with and want to debate??

Why do you have the same avatar now! I was already mixing you two up all the time.

nurbs is my multiaccount.

No, you're my multiaccount.

I'm the original. You're the multi.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

At 12/4/2012 1:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:I think Hitler's attempt to cleanse the world of Jews and create a supreme race of blonde haired, blue eyed white people could also be argued as being based on Darwinian principles, which are obviously atheistic.

Care to debate me on this point? I say it's BS.

He said COULD, not IS.

Obviously he meant to imply that it might be true. However, it isn't true. It's creationist propaganda.

It is true, as I will now proveDarwinism states:Superior species survive while the lesser ones die outHitler's philosophy:Aryans are a superior race, thus all lesser races must die out